Just out of curiosity (and I'm especially interested to hear what skeptics have to say):
2) If not, why not?
3) If so, is it justified (in the sense relevant to discussions about moral responsibility, whatever that sense is)?
4) If not, why not?
To focus discussion, perhaps it would be good to make two assumptions: (a) both incidents did actually involve some sort of (admittedly mild) norm-violation, and also (b) subsequent reactions were not motivated by the desire to influence subsequent conduct.